I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.

Interestingly, over at Nikonrumors, DxO and their test results are almost never mentioned. Neither is Canon. They're too busy discussing using their cameras and photography... lens recommendations, best body for specific purposes and the like.

Interestingly, over at Nikonrumors, DxO and their test results are almost never mentioned. Neither is Canon. They're too busy discussing using their cameras and photography... lens recommendations, best body for specific purposes and the like.

Funny, you are quite correct Simon! It is quite amusing how Nikon users don't appreciate DXO's scores any more than us Canon users. It all comes down to people at both rumours sites being interested in photography and real life usability of cameras instead of the senseless vendor bashing promoted by some.

Interestingly, over at Nikonrumors, DxO and their test results are almost never mentioned. Neither is Canon. They're too busy discussing using their cameras and photography... lens recommendations, best body for specific purposes and the like.

None of the desperate fighting seen here.

Are you sure, just saw one on their first page "DxOMark test results for Nikon 1 J2 mirrorless camera are out"

Ah, but I'm talking about the forum there. There nobody could care less about DxO. There they discuss cameras and photography. Not DxO.

What is published on the first page of the site is a different story. That after all is the admin giving us news, just like here.

And even in the comments to the front page posts, DxO is hardly mentioned. Almost all discussion in the comments threads on the front page is complaints about Nikon doing this that, or not doing this or that ('when is the D400 coming' etc). Typical nonsense you find in any similar situation, whether it's cameras, software, guitars, games, computer parts or smartphones or whatever. People just complain and bitch.

Ok, so here I am a physicist (no I am not a student anymore) and I don't "FEEL" anything regarding DXO.

Are you trying to kid us all here? Get a grip on reality.

Social scientists 'feel' things. Real scientists quantify things....

Do you really want to say that you do not "FEEL" what is behind the numbers in a real life or do not want to "FEEL" them? Simple example - you are leaving your apartment, checking the weather gadget and it tells that in one hour temperature will drop down from 70F to 41F and wind speed will rise from 1m/c to 30m/c. And you will be telling that you do not "feel" what all that means and what you need to do regarding that and what to put on? I can't believe that ))))))) And there thousands examples like this)))I think this example above clearly clarifies what I meant in my posts using word “FEEL” the numbers. And I really appreciate your sense of humor but as usual to make a joke one need to turn things upside down to make things look funny.And here order of things does matter and significant.First of course are things quantified by numbers (nobody argues about that) and then how one realize or understand what is behind that numbers ("forest behind the trees") - one can name it "FEEL", "VISUALIZE", "IMAGINE" - call it whatever you want.I have no doubts that you know this better than me )))) Regarding DXO SCORE discussion my point was that it is absolutely pointless to argue about SCORE results, one need to see at measurements curves and understand or "feel" how this correlates to real life. Arguing about one dimensional SCORE value is the same as to argue about mapping multi-dimensional space into one dimensional. No need to be a scientist to know that mapping multidimensional space into single dimensional space has infinite number of solutions and each one could be correct depending on initial mapping conditions. In addition this mapping is not reversible - you cannot revert or map it back to the original space - here is again infinite number of solutions for that.

Any discussion should be constructive and not destructive – so something useful could result as outcome of that and could be used for benefit of all involved. Again back to DXO - and if they are listening – they could easily reconcile most (but not all of course) people on all the forums by introducing several different sensor scores based on the target usage and carefully defined metrics to get right score for each of the usage domains e.g.: 1. Landscape/studio photography 2. General use photography (no extreme conditions)3. Sport/events/shows photography for ISO above 1600 or may be even above ISO 32004. Best universal shooting – suitable to work in any extreme conditions 5. Keep their own DXO metrics. Then from drop down menu list anyone can select criteria which he want to use to and see what are sensors ranking and what is the best sensor for this specific domain. There is no big deal to do that.This could be just better way to present measurements results to specific groups of photographers.

Interestingly, over at Nikonrumors, DxO and their test results are almost never mentioned. Neither is Canon. They're too busy discussing using their cameras and photography... lens recommendations, best body for specific purposes and the like.

None of the desperate fighting seen here.

I love my Canon gear, but this might be the best reason yet to switch to Nikon

If you had a camera that had the DR of the human eye but only shot one frame every 10 minutes at ISO 100 only and was only manual focus...

I've read in a book of a Russian author (not sure if it was translated to English) that human eye has 5-6 stops of DR. And the reason we can see much bigger range of lightness levels is the ability of our eyes to adapt to the rapidly changing environment.

The book's author was a researcher in photography so this statement might be true. Did anyone hear anything like that?

If you had a camera that had the DR of the human eye but only shot one frame every 10 minutes at ISO 100 only and was only manual focus...

I've read in a book of a Russian author (not sure if it was translated to English) that human eye has 5-6 stops of DR. And the reason we can see much bigger range of lightness levels is the ability of our eyes to adapt to the rapidly changing environment.

The book's author was a researcher in photography so this statement might be true. Did anyone hear anything like that?

Yes I have that somewhere.

I always was told our eye has a massive DR but not because of the optics but how our brain can dynamically adjust areas of a scene to make blacks brighter and highlights darker. Kinda like dynamic area ISO.